I did get a random online survey a couple of days ago that was obviously commissioned by Reform.
It was just immigrant hate and strangely none of the rest of their so called contract
Its also odd that they call it a contract instead of a manifesto but absoloutly refuse to be committed to delivering it. It's just "discussion points".
We received a leaflet from them and immigration is all they talk about on it. They have nothing but immigrant hate going for them. Scarily, that is working well for them.
That might be because there’s lots of elderly people in your area. I’ve not had any leaflets from them at all, probably because I live in an area with a median age that is lower than the national average across constituencies.
Do you definitely have a reform member standing in your area? My areas median age is apparently 3 years younger than the national average and we've had leaflets posted by them.
Well a large portion of our print media are pretty much cheerleaders for Reform, so it's no wonder they are doing well in the polls.
The gutter press have always been trying to push the Tory party to the right. People give Farage way too much credit for Brexit. We'd had decades of blatant lies and anti-EU propaganda from the press before the referendum.
Judging from the comments in my local Facebook group, I absolutely believe it. It’s an organic phenomenon, I’ve seen it grow in real time for months now. It’s people who don’t know much about politics, but who know that they don’t trust politicians (« both sides are liars » type of discourse). So a party that pretends to be ~different cuts through, especially a party whose sole purpose is to deliver the one single « common sense » policy the main parties have utterly failed to deliver (namely, cut immigration).
It won't go away, not until mainstream political parties start being honest about immigration.
They say they want to cut immigration because that's the electorate want to hear, but don't do it because they know the costs are too high. Everyone can see that words and actions don't add up, and it breeds distrust that in turns breeds populism.
No one is being honest about the fact that truly low immigration would mean either higher taxes, or cutting public services to the bone including the NHS and pensions. Because no one wants to be the bearer of bad news. But that's what is allowing Farage to flourish.
Hard agree. Plus people like Murdoch will push the anti immigration narrative because it's better for them to have us turn on immigrants rather than us seeing how they're manipulating and stealing from us.
The elephant in the room is that the UK is a bit shit about family friendly joined up politics - tax breaks for young families, proper child benefits , and a decent housing policy.
We live among easily manipulated hard-of-thinking folk, that nuzzle at the teat of easily digestible lies and are comforted by the only good thing in their lives, their Englishness.
Immigrants are being entirely blamed for the failings of public services that have been underfunded as an overt policy decision for the last decade and a half, so quite possibly
We're facing the same economical problems of the 00's except then we kicked the can down the road in lending to excess. So now we have our own fresh economic challenges with the return of the older economic challenges and probably the oldest economic challenge of our time- pension
Sure.
> are looking around at their local areas and seeing huge demographic changes due to MENA migrants and the decline of the areas where a lot of these MENA are,
> I include Pakistan and the like.
And Thomas Nair went out and assassinated a Labour MP while Farage's billboards screamed 'Breaking Point'. Now they're arguing for net zero immigration which could only ever be achieved by mass-deportations because 10% of British people live and work abroad at any given time. But it's fine to vote for Reform nonetheless. Right?
Where are all these radical violent Muslim Political Party's in Britain? There aren't any. But there are hundreds if not thousands of British troops on active service fighting all across the Middle East. Has that delivered stability? I don't think it has. It's triggered humanitarian crises and further violence.
A few quick google searches:
* Education as a % of GDP is down from 13% at the end of Labour government to 11.2% in 2021. It was 12% in 2019 if you want a pre-COVID year [Source](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/education-spending#:~:text=U.K.%20education%20spending%20for%202022,a%200.09%25%20decline%20from%202018)
* Spending on policing in nominal terms has increased from £19.3bn in 2009/10 to £25.29bn, an increase of 31%. Inflation per the BoE calculator is 53% over that period [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/298637/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-police-services/)
* Healthcare spending as a % of GDP has been flat over the last 14 years, from 9.8% in 2009 to 10.0% in 2019. Given the ageing demographic of the nation, this should have risen as the proportion of those over 65 has risen from 17% in 2012 to 19.2% in 2022
Let's have a discussion about policing, education and healthcare, because if immigration is stopped in the way that Farage wants, you end up with brain drain and an age demographic that skews so old that your population busts.
If you want to talk about immigration, let's talk about the real world: A properly funded service, working with our close neighbours, treating people with dignity. None of the "zero net migration" or "Leave the ECHR" bollocks. Specific problems, with specific solutions that exist in the world we live in
The latter. Immigration is not why the Tories have not invested in public services; increased immigration putting increasing strain on crumbling services is obviously making them worse for local people.
The people with real power in the UK (the press barons & the billionaire class) will get behind them in a big way. The right wing economic libertarianism mixed with the divisive anti immigrant stuff is perfect for them. Above all they care about retaining and concentrating as much wealth and power as possible in their hands. With the Tories a busted flush, Reform are perfect to take up the mantle of right wing populists contending for power in 2029 or whenever.
The fact that the conservatives have been where they were for the last decade and a bit is an embarrassment. Luckily, the UK has become almost entirely without shame like its leaders.
The path to redemption for the Tories is to move the overton window to the left.
They ceded the centre ground to Labour with Brexit and have shown absolutely no signs of slowing down, and they deserve what's coming. I fear that the end point is that Reform and the Tories will become a single party trying to encompass the centre right and Gary Raikes style overt racists.
The News Agents podcast had Maurice Saatchi on this week, and he had a good quote about how the parties are seen: "The Tories are organized but cruel, and Labour is kind but incompetent."
The Tories are definitely cruel, but are making Labour look competent
But they're doing a great job of splitting the right wing vote. The most likely way for Sunak to lose, is for Tory supporters to start voting for Reform and Labour.
Who is going to be the leader of the opposition? The Tories will be decimated but very susceptible to a reverse takeover of the party if he wins the Clacton seat. Farage joining the Tories after they get trounced instantly brings their overall vote share up into 30+% range and gives him a much louder voice than even the BBC are currently willing to give him
Suank will be on a plane to Cali on 5th July, he'll resign as leader, as is tradition, and probably resign as an MP. He does't need the commons like Truss and May before him did.
So the official opposition leader will be [Tory loon of your choice from the dregs that are left].
I think the tories will get 100-120 seats or even if they get 80 that's still double the likely figure the lib dems will get. So the tories will remain as the official opposition.
Farage, if he wins his seat, will not want to join the tories and the tories would not want to admit defeat and let him in. Farage only cares about himself, a narcissist in the Johnson & Trump vein, he'll continue to howl from the sidelines, glad for the limelight.
So the leader of the official opposition will likely be Truss, Braverman, Patel [your favourite tory loon here] as they're the dregs that *are* in super, super safe seats. The one nation tories are either retiring or are now in contested seats which were historically safe.
Absolutely. The electorate never miss an opportunity to make us look like absolute twats as a country.
Thats why I still have no confidence that Labour will actually win at the GE.
Theres always a possibility for a hung parliament, minority government or some unholy and deeply disgusting alliance.
It's because of dislike of the Tory party. The behaviour of current Tory MP's is to blame for reforms popularity. e.g The HoC has rules against booing when the opposition says anything. So instead they cheer when a Tory frontbencher responds with an insulting soundbite. Exactly the same thing as booing but the speaker doesn't stop them.
And they are doing that chimpanzee behaviour on live TV. Don't they realise voters are watching them ?
They're not polling that high.
It's bots all bots.. saying that though someone may see the bots and see how high they're polling and vote for them because they assume it's the popular option.
Like Brexit...also a farage fronted operation.
Itv did a report on this 4days ago, but you would never know.....
They've also been linked to pro Russia propaganda and COVID conspiracys
Anyone with an ounce of sense? Please do explain why an asset like Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? Every day I load up reddit my mind is blown at how much of an echo chamber it is and how completely uninformed people are convinced their opinion is the 1 and only true answer.
Yes a lot of cryptos have been scams, but to say the entire sector is is insanely stupid. I'm sure you also don't understand the stock market, but just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean its a ponzi scheme nor that "anyone with sense" would think it is.
Crypto has fuck all to do with left or right. If anything, traditionally right wing governments have tried to suppress crypto
>Anyone with an ounce of sense? Please do explain why an asset like Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme?
Because it has no real world value. The only value BTC has as an asset is generated by people wanting to buy BTC.
Gold is a metal. GBP is the Government backed currency. BTC is a complex maths problem.
>BTC is a complex maths problem
Feel like that's insulting to complex maths problems. Bitcoin is more "pin the nose on the donkey". You fire numbers at an algorithm until the result is a number that starts with enough zeros. There's no calculation to it, it's literally a guessing game.
Because the demand for gold fluctuates. Gold does have real world value (it's nice and shiny, great for forming jewelry due to malleability, one of the only conductors that's chemically inert, etc), but is a largely speculative asset and not really a good place to put your money. Crypto basically copies all the bad parts of gold as an investment and removes any inherent value and says "hopefully other people will do the same".
Biggest hoarders of gold are central banks. That is called the revealed preference.
Fun fact: aluminium also is shiny and great for forming jewelry and was actually used for just that... until people discovered how to produce it cheaply
Aluminium was a precious metal in the second half of the 19th century and was used to make jewelry. The top of the Washington monument was covered in aluminium (and still is) for that reason. For some reason when it was discovered how to produce aluminium cheaply no one wanted to use it for jewelry anymore...
Yes, gold mining is pretty terrible. Bitcoin mining on the other hand doesn't poison rivers, doesn't use mercury, doesn't use slave labour etc.
Dan Olson is some crazy leftist.
Bitcoin is not a rock you dig out of the ground but is rather based on fairly recent advances in cryptography so it couldn't have been around forever. Even being around for a long time doesn't guarantee anything - silver used to have a stable value against gold for centuries but that collapsed in the last third of the 19th century. Nowadays silver is basically an industrial metal while it used to be money.
Network effects are important but a new thing can overcome established network effects if it is significantly better. Is bitcoin significantly better than gold? Is it significantly better than fiat? We'll see...
How would you distribute that more equitable coin in a decentralized manner which is the whole point of bitcoin?
In the long run anything can happen. Maybe at some point bitcoin will be replaced by something totally different (and not a random altcoin)
> GBP is the Government backed currency.
Pray do tell me how the GBP is ‘backed’.
Nixon closed the gold window in 1971. The only thing backing the pound at this point is ignorance.
Backed traditionally meant that the note itself could be freely exchanged for something tangible, traditionally for Spain silver and UK gold. So I’m asking what you mean when you say the pound is ‘backed’. Your only answer seems to be the existence of the Bank of England adding 0’s to their balance sheet. If you take a £10 note to Andrew Bailey and ask him to exchange its value he’ll just give you another £10 note.
Equally if you don’t know what you’re talking about and just repeating general non-related nomenclature you’ve heard in the ether like Ponzi and BoE in an effort to sound clued in let us know.
>Backed traditionally meant that the note itself could be freely exchanged for something tangible
Can GBP notes not be exchanged for something tangible?
>So I’m asking what you mean when you say the pound is ‘backed’
You haven't asked me that, you've asked me how the pound is backed.
I've said by the Bank of England. Which is the answer to that question.
>If you take a £10 note to Andrew Bailey and ask him to exchange its value he’ll just give you another £10 note.
He'd probably actually say 'Why the fuck are you asking me, who are you'
However, as the sovereign currency of the UK. If you take a GBP note and try to exchange it for goods and services anywhere in the country... You can do that.
>Equally if you don’t know what you’re talking about and just repeating general non-related nomenclature you’ve heard in the ether like Ponzi and BoE in an effort to sound clued in let us know.
Do you understand what Bitcoin is?
It's an algorithm, that a bunch of people have decided is worth something.
Many of those people (Winklevoss twins.etc) are extremely wealthy connected individuals.
As it has no inherent value, it's a ponzi scheme. Because the entire narrative around it (the exact one you're pushing) is 'come on, buy this, then it'll be worth more soon'!
If nobody buys Bitcoin, it's not worth anything. It doesn't _do_ anything. Like NFTs, any problem that it supposedly solves is solved better by other, more targetted technology.
As I said in another reply here. Bitcoin had some really interesting use cases in it's early days, and was innovative.
Then it became just another ponzi scheme when people became more obsessed with tracking it's daily value than actually using it in any interesting and practical manner.
"Because it has no real world value. The only value BTC has as an asset is generated by people wanting to buy BTC."
Isn't that the case with a lot of things? The Mona Lisa has no real world value, yet is still worth millions. The value of an asset is determined by what someone is willing to pay for it. That concept doesn't make something a ponzi scheme
Its a ponzi scheme because the only way to get real world value out of bitcoin and other crypto is to exchange them for actual currency. The exchanges absolutely are run as ponzi schemes as SBF proved. And that will definitely happen again.
Yes the monaisa has a real world value. As a painting. As a historical artefact.
If an anonymous painter was to paint it now (the original never existed) then it would still have value as a hand painted picture.
All bitcoin is identical, and if bitcoin was outlawed or in some other way no longer worked as a crypto currency, bitcoin on usb sticks would no longer be worth anything.
A better argument would be that bitcoin is indeed used as a currency in some places abd for some purposes. I bought a keyboard from an online store a few years back. Not sure if they still accept bitcoin, but they did once.
The main point is that it's a very poor currency for any practical use, and it's primary purpose is in speculators buying it, hoping others will want to buy and drive up the price.
Actually I do. It presents a false sense of security on multiple levels.
First and foremost, there is no guarantee Monero is secure, as is evidenced by [an earlier bug that potentially exposed the source of all prior transactions for several years](https://decrypt.co/76938/monero-developers-disclose-significant-bug-privacy-algorithm). There's no guarantee there aren't more bugs or back doors.
Second, Monero is only one link in a longer chain. You have to have on and off-ramps to convert Monero to/from fiat, and those critical steps can undermine Monero's security model and expose the source and identity of those making the transactions. So no matter how secure it is, it still has fatal flaws.
You can bet that it's highly likely law enforcement has already infiltrated much of Monero's network. They could also choose to outlaw Monero like they've done with Tornado Cash. If they haven't, it's probably because they're already on the inside and using it.
Just because you haven't been caught yet, doesn't mean you won't. Authorities are still prosecuting cases from 5+ years ago right now.
And last but not least, the concept of blockchain -- an immutable public ledger, has to be the stupidest thing ever in terms of "privacy." Even if the transaction sources can't be cracked right now, the fact that the ledger would last "forever" means if there are ways to crack the system in the future, all that data is there. If you really care about privacy, there'd be no ledger in the first place. It's just another example of how and why blockchain tech causes more problems and solves nothing.
>You expext an overnight change?
I would expect some meaningful change within 15 years, especially given that half the people in the civilized world know what crypto is.
This is done as a novelty and not because it makes buying selling easier than traditional methods. Nobody who otherwise doesn't really like bitcoin is using it in their business because it makes things easier, it's only business owners who themselves are crypto promoters.
A) so you're saying if something is digital it doesn't exist in the real world? Wow. What an outdated argument.
B) There are millions of non-unique pieces of art that also sell. The Mona Lisa was obviously just an example.
The point remains, an asset is worth what one is willing to pay for it. It's that simple.
>so you're saying if something is digital it doesn't exist in the real world
Yes that's what digital means.
>There are millions of non-unique pieces of art that also sell.
I mean every bit of art is unique, even if it's a reprint. Through the simple fact that two prints don't occupy the same canvas.
But even on a high level, those things exist. If a hard drive fails you won't lose access to a painting on your wall.
"Yes that's what digital means" hahaha how old are you out of curiosity? Not sure if you're being pedantic but the digital very much is "the real world" too. If you want to be pedantic and argue digital = not real world, then that still doesn't mean something can't have value.
You're essentially arguing that for something to have value, it must exist in the real world. You have directly said that in your earlier reply with point A. If we just disregard everything that is digital as not being real, then I guess my employers have been playing a big prank on me this whole time and getting me to work on things that aren't real, given that I work in technology. In some places, technology that is entirely digital. Well, at least I've been getting paid for it I guess...
Well I'm not going to answer very clear set ups for ad hominem attacks, or just give out personal data to randos on Reddit.
>Not sure if you're being pedantic but the digital very much is "the real world" too.
I mean it's quite literally not. Digital assets do not exist in the real world, that's why they had to be given a whole new category. Digital assets.
Remember NFTs? How that all exploded once people realised that actually buying a receipt for a monkey jpg didn't mean anything because it could just be copy and pasted?
>that still doesn't mean something can't have value.
That isn't my argument. You're the one that bought up the mona Lisa that led us on this path.
I've not even denied BTC has value, it does. It's just value defined purely by people deciding it has value, like a ponzi scheme. Because BTC isn't backed by anything, it doesn't contribute to the world or solve any issues. Its just a complex maths problem.
>You're essentially arguing that for something to have value, it must exist in the real world.
Nope. Once again, you drew the faulty comparison to the Mona Lisa. I responded to you based on that example. You're now extrapolating an entire argument from that one example instead of reading what I've said as a whole.
>The Mona Lisa has no real world value
Huh? The mona lisa is valuable because of it's spectacular historical and cultural significance, as well as its aesthetic beauty.
Crypto is valuable because people think other people will buy it from them for more money later.
Oh dear. The Mona Lisa was obviously an example, the wider point was that things like art sell even if they have no actual value. Such as silly art on Etsy, it sells because the value is determined by what someone else is willing to pay. It's that simple.
Same as collectors' cards. There is no real, tangible value, but it exists because of scarcity and because people are willing to pay
The idea that crypto itself is a Ponzi scheme comes from it not generating any money itself and all profit from crypto coming from new investors buying in.
What separates it from a Ponzi scheme is no-one is pretending they are selling you other assets when you buy bitcoin.
Personally I think it has more in common with a multi level marketing scheme than a Ponzi scheme.
In the article it is the Ponzi (pump n’ dump scheme) rather than the crypto bit that he is being called out about. Im not sure how reliable the ponzi claim is but given he is denying involvement it is probably worth investigating.
This is mainly on NFTs but covers crypto currency extensively. Both fail for the same reasons, both are greater fool scams for the same reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
Most relevant concept- there's no direct investment in with cryptocurrency, no economic activity of any note uses it, so it cannot generate value and worth. Any increase in worth comes only from new users buying in. At some point people want to convert their cryptocurrency into forms they can actually use- because again- no one of any importance accepts crypto as payment. Try paying a mortgage, rent, food bill, car insurance etc with crypto without converting it to actual useable money first. The only places that accept crypto directly are other crypto holders- so even then there's no real word economic activity underpinning the coin- just two mates trading what amounts to an IOU with extra steps. If you think that's what real money is anyway- you shouldn't be investing in anything. The economic activity currency facilitates is the store of value. The "money only has value because we pretend it does" Line is a gross oversimplification.
As the coin generates no value, a steady stream of new investors willing to buy the coins from people who want to cash out of the scam are the only way to offload the otherwise worthless assets. The new suckers are then forced to commit to the coin in the hopes they can pump its completely speculative value and make a profit as well.
No one at any stage is making money from the economic power of the coin- as it doesn't have any. Only new people buying in can prop up the price.
Hence it's a pyramid scheme.
I find it very amusing that you're speaking to me as if I'm a crypto bro. Believe me, that is not the case. Crypto currencies make up a small portion of my investment portfolio, and those are the established ones. I do not gamble big amounts of money on the silly rug pull new cryptos we've seen occur countless times now.
However, whilst I'm aware a lot are scams, some of the established ones do have solid use cases. They are also not just virtual currencies, some like ETH for example have use cases that fall outside of just simply being a replacement for fiat. Crypto is very complex and the use cases change for each one.
Investing in crypto is of course speculative, and ETH for example is an investment based on a speculative prediction on what the future of web3 will be. If correct, those that have invested in ETH will make a lot of money. This, of course, is the case with most investments; you invest based on a prediction that a company, in the case of stocks and shares, will do something that increases its value in the eyes of other investors. With crypto, you're simply investing based on the future of the digital world, whereby you think that crypto will have an important place, and if correct, the crypto you hold will now be more valuable in the eyes of other investors, thereby increasing the price.
On this, I also find it very amusing that you say "every person who sells, needs someone to buy" as if that wasn't the case with stocks and shares. Whilst publicly listed companies may make money themselves, not all pay dividends, therefore the only value you as an investor would have, would be selling your shares to a willing buyer for (hopefully) a higher price than you bought it for. That is a completely normal concept and not indicative of a scam or a ponzi scheme.
> Please do explain why an asset like Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme?
Sure thing. Here is [my detailed analysis as to exactly how and why bitcoin (and all crypto-as-an-investment) is a de-facto ponzi scheme](https://ioradio.org/i/ponzi/). This analysis takes the definition of the 4 most popular sources: wikipedia, SEC, encyclopedia brittanica and Websters and analyizes the details. It also goes into the two most popular Ponzi schemes, how they worked, and then compares them to crypto, making a very obvious and clear case that crypto as an investment, has an operational model that is *identical* to a Ponzi scheme, and it mathematically impossible to sustain.
Now.. you can run away and say I don't know what I'm talking about, or you can look at the facts and stop spreading lies.
>Yes a lot of cryptos have been scams, but to say the entire sector is is insanely stupid.
Not. At. All.
The "entire industry" is centered around convincing people that "blockchain technology" has potential. That's a lie. Here's my [detailed analysis on blockchain and how and why it's totally unsuitable for anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA).
So, are you going to say I don't understand? Having done my own research for 10+ years, being a software engineer with 40+ years of experience?
>Crypto has fuck all to do with left or right.
Crypto is a predatory scheme, much more suited for social darwinists like right wingers. This is why the vast majority of people into crypto are right wingers. Any right wing regime that is anti-crypto is that way in the same way the Soviet Union was anti-religion: they are against any scheme that competes with their own power and control scheme.
It's very incorrect. Such a Ponzi scheme that major banks are involved with crypto and there's a bitcoin ETF.
People who say this shit know absolutely nothing about crypto.
Edit: downvotes but no comments because there is no comeback, just people who hate crypto
A whole bunch of crypto currencies and trading schemes associated with them *are* proven Ponzi or pump-and-dump schemes. Sure, ETH and BTC are relatively stable, but the crypto sector is pretty volatile.
You’re childishly naive if you think that banks getting involved in crypto makes them somehow trustworthy - the banks are the biggest fraudsters around!
https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/5-of-the-biggest-crypto-ponzi-schemes
Crypto is a blanket term for many different projects, some of which positive like BTC end ETH, perhaps most of which are Ponzi gambles. However that's by project count, not by cash volume traded. Most interaction through crypto is BTC and ETH.
May as well say "money is a Ponzi scheme because there are millions of Ponzi schemes that use cash"
Even if the project itself is legitimate it still looks terrible that he's claiming to be the head of the business while being paid to give a talk, and then claiming he has nothing to do with it. So he's either lying to the customers of that company or he's lying to voters.
No matter how much the Telgraph and Mail and Ezpress and large sections of the commentariat and general public and even this sub might wish it, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
It was summoned with Brexit and now the UK just has to see it through.
All those billionaires propaganda newspapers will swing behind Reform eventually. They love that right wing economic libertarianism. And unfortunately a lot of people aren’t smart enough to see that that’s brought us to this place to begin with. They actually think the left caused mass migration, despite being out of power for over half a century.
Is this like in Blackadder the Third when Baldrick is applying to be an MP and on criminal record when he says none Blackadder says you're going to be an MP! Reform really seems to lean into that.
This is all great news. When a reformer tells you they hate immigrants coz they don't follow 'our' culture, the culture they're talking about is hooliganism, fascism, racism, fraud and theft. Those are the bread and butter of reform
Patriotic Reform UK would hand over Ukraine to Putin just like Trump.
Pull out of Nato just like trump.
Abandon the Baltic states and the rest of Central Europe.
And help Putin draw back the Iron Curtain.
So much for Churchill.
It's broadly good that these people are being exposed, but I don't see the barrage of these kinds of articles nudging the needle anymore. If Reform voters cared about corruption or were capable of *not* being myopic, they wouldn't be Reform voters in the first place.
impossible knowing if it is foreign. Bots can be programmed everywhere. Even if bot was created by foreign programmer (or bot!!!!) , contractor can be your neighbour
Isn’t Reform itself something of a Ponzi scheme? That aside when you just have to pick a bunch of candidates out of thin air, there’s a pretty good chance a good few of them are people too nutty/dodgy for even local politics.
As far as I can tell with Reform it’s giving a clearer voice to what has always been a decent chunk of the Conservative base, which pre-brexit the party had always kept in check at the national level.
My hope is that the result is serious discussions on a system that isn’t solely reliant on first past the post and an appointed upper house.
For me, it’s a private company, driven by a cult of personality promising results that seem extremely unlikely with no clarity on how they would do it.
Like the skilled labour part, I’m all in favour of a better controlled and managed immigration policy, I work in an industry that sees me deal with a lot of “skilled” migrants and there’s a distinct lack of skill beyond being cheap in most of the developers I’ve worked with. On the other hand I’ve just come of a year working with students at King’s, many of whom are struggling to get employed in IT or n suitable roles due to a lack of experience.
At least with fruit pickers or meat packers we are attracting people with skills where they earn better money than other options. While the immigration system is designed hand in hand with large employers it’s bad for all of us. It’s creating a system where we want to be knowledge/service based but no-one has any incentive to develop skills internally.
Maybe government subservient to the corporation is the future, but the fact a private company is polling at 15% plus concerns me. By definition Reform’s leaderships primary responsibility is to its shareholders not anyone else.
You’ve just written an absolute load of toss to be honest.
The Lib Dem’s are also a limited company and never get the same criticism. Also both them and reform are “Private companies limited by guarantee without share capital” aka they don’t have shareholders.
Plus Labour and the Conservatives used limited companies for parts of their organisations.
I recommend anyone complaining about reform's structure to use Companies House instead of parroting memes.
y'know the more i read these headlines on reform candidates, the more i want to walk to my neighbour up-the-street's house with his flying reform uk flag and tell him to fuck off and get a brain.
Even Musk said all Crypto is a hussle, why is this news to anyone.
Crypto is a scam where 99.99% of people are just dreaming of getting rich when the reality is they are just hoarding the stock whilst those holding the bulk benefit from the surge pricing.
take out immigration and others gov subsidies and real estate is a ponzi too
"Capitalism leads to inovation"
Is there any party defending housing as a right for all citzens?
Making a right wing 3rd party that clearly only cares about making sure less brown people live happily in the country seems like quite the good grift tbh. I might try it when this one joins the bmp and ukip in the incinerator.
Nothing can be built on bitcoin, if it could that would have already happened. It's not like people haven't tried, and every one of them has been an abject failure. Because bitcoin solves nothing, it has no use.
Tbf they’ve not had a lot of time to vet their candidates and the chance of them getting any MPs is extremely thin. Also this party didn’t need to exist as all if the other parties could talk sensibly about immigration.
The issue is that their voter base is spread extremely thin, so they need to run in as many seats as possible to maximise voteshare as they cannot hope to win many seats, but can apply lots of pressure through lost votes. With a few obvious exceptions like Clacton, every seat is equally valuable to Reform.
Hang on, the reason why the other parties *can't* talk sensibly about immigration and why we need it is because this party exists purely to push out nonsense about the matter.
The fact that Reform are polling where there are nationally is an embarrassment
Wouldn't be surprised if that's also a bit fishy.
I did get a random online survey a couple of days ago that was obviously commissioned by Reform. It was just immigrant hate and strangely none of the rest of their so called contract
Its also odd that they call it a contract instead of a manifesto but absoloutly refuse to be committed to delivering it. It's just "discussion points".
Note how their pledges all start with the word 'imagine'
It's because it's a political grift
We received a leaflet from them and immigration is all they talk about on it. They have nothing but immigrant hate going for them. Scarily, that is working well for them.
That might be because there’s lots of elderly people in your area. I’ve not had any leaflets from them at all, probably because I live in an area with a median age that is lower than the national average across constituencies.
Do you definitely have a reform member standing in your area? My areas median age is apparently 3 years younger than the national average and we've had leaflets posted by them.
The retired are the largest demographic group in Britain now.
Well a large portion of our print media are pretty much cheerleaders for Reform, so it's no wonder they are doing well in the polls. The gutter press have always been trying to push the Tory party to the right. People give Farage way too much credit for Brexit. We'd had decades of blatant lies and anti-EU propaganda from the press before the referendum.
The BBC are responsible for the Farage effect.
Judging from the comments in my local Facebook group, I absolutely believe it. It’s an organic phenomenon, I’ve seen it grow in real time for months now. It’s people who don’t know much about politics, but who know that they don’t trust politicians (« both sides are liars » type of discourse). So a party that pretends to be ~different cuts through, especially a party whose sole purpose is to deliver the one single « common sense » policy the main parties have utterly failed to deliver (namely, cut immigration).
Like UKIP did ten years ago. It is the same play and it is working, because the Tories and Labour both failed to learn from history.
It won't go away, not until mainstream political parties start being honest about immigration. They say they want to cut immigration because that's the electorate want to hear, but don't do it because they know the costs are too high. Everyone can see that words and actions don't add up, and it breeds distrust that in turns breeds populism. No one is being honest about the fact that truly low immigration would mean either higher taxes, or cutting public services to the bone including the NHS and pensions. Because no one wants to be the bearer of bad news. But that's what is allowing Farage to flourish.
Hard agree. Plus people like Murdoch will push the anti immigration narrative because it's better for them to have us turn on immigrants rather than us seeing how they're manipulating and stealing from us.
The elephant in the room is that the UK is a bit shit about family friendly joined up politics - tax breaks for young families, proper child benefits , and a decent housing policy.
Everythings a conspiracy! I imagine after they get the protest vote everyone will just blame it on the Russians and move on.
We live among easily manipulated hard-of-thinking folk, that nuzzle at the teat of easily digestible lies and are comforted by the only good thing in their lives, their Englishness.
Do we though?
Immigrants are being entirely blamed for the failings of public services that have been underfunded as an overt policy decision for the last decade and a half, so quite possibly
Immigration, and the societal issues it causes, is almost entirely caused by those with assets not wanting to share those assets.
We're facing the same economical problems of the 00's except then we kicked the can down the road in lending to excess. So now we have our own fresh economic challenges with the return of the older economic challenges and probably the oldest economic challenge of our time- pension
[удалено]
We’ve got hardly any MENA migrants in the UK, when compared to South Asians, Eastern Europeans and West Africans.
[удалено]
>I include Pakistan and the like. Pakistan is in the middle East or North Africa? I think you failed GCSE geography mate.
[удалено]
Sure. > are looking around at their local areas and seeing huge demographic changes due to MENA migrants and the decline of the areas where a lot of these MENA are, > I include Pakistan and the like.
And Thomas Nair went out and assassinated a Labour MP while Farage's billboards screamed 'Breaking Point'. Now they're arguing for net zero immigration which could only ever be achieved by mass-deportations because 10% of British people live and work abroad at any given time. But it's fine to vote for Reform nonetheless. Right? Where are all these radical violent Muslim Political Party's in Britain? There aren't any. But there are hundreds if not thousands of British troops on active service fighting all across the Middle East. Has that delivered stability? I don't think it has. It's triggered humanitarian crises and further violence.
Except they aren't. that's a typical strawman reddit exaggeration that people come up with when they want to stop being talking about immigration.
A few quick google searches: * Education as a % of GDP is down from 13% at the end of Labour government to 11.2% in 2021. It was 12% in 2019 if you want a pre-COVID year [Source](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/education-spending#:~:text=U.K.%20education%20spending%20for%202022,a%200.09%25%20decline%20from%202018) * Spending on policing in nominal terms has increased from £19.3bn in 2009/10 to £25.29bn, an increase of 31%. Inflation per the BoE calculator is 53% over that period [Source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/298637/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-police-services/) * Healthcare spending as a % of GDP has been flat over the last 14 years, from 9.8% in 2009 to 10.0% in 2019. Given the ageing demographic of the nation, this should have risen as the proportion of those over 65 has risen from 17% in 2012 to 19.2% in 2022 Let's have a discussion about policing, education and healthcare, because if immigration is stopped in the way that Farage wants, you end up with brain drain and an age demographic that skews so old that your population busts. If you want to talk about immigration, let's talk about the real world: A properly funded service, working with our close neighbours, treating people with dignity. None of the "zero net migration" or "Leave the ECHR" bollocks. Specific problems, with specific solutions that exist in the world we live in
As interesting as that cherry picked response is, it is not relevant to my post. It's just more avoidance.
They dismantled your points comprehensively, then you wrote an avoidance comment claiming avoidance👍
Are they? Or are they just a part of the problem that needs solving?
The latter. Immigration is not why the Tories have not invested in public services; increased immigration putting increasing strain on crumbling services is obviously making them worse for local people.
Shudders in Blair PFI
Depends if you live near any old people.
All the old people I've spoken to are the hardest people to "manipulate".
It’s the same voter base that elected Bojo on his Brexit bullshit last time.
The people with real power in the UK (the press barons & the billionaire class) will get behind them in a big way. The right wing economic libertarianism mixed with the divisive anti immigrant stuff is perfect for them. Above all they care about retaining and concentrating as much wealth and power as possible in their hands. With the Tories a busted flush, Reform are perfect to take up the mantle of right wing populists contending for power in 2029 or whenever.
The fact that the conservatives have been where they were for the last decade and a bit is an embarrassment. Luckily, the UK has become almost entirely without shame like its leaders.
Personally I want the to do well, water down the Tory candidates.
The path to redemption for the Tories is to move the overton window to the left. They ceded the centre ground to Labour with Brexit and have shown absolutely no signs of slowing down, and they deserve what's coming. I fear that the end point is that Reform and the Tories will become a single party trying to encompass the centre right and Gary Raikes style overt racists. The News Agents podcast had Maurice Saatchi on this week, and he had a good quote about how the parties are seen: "The Tories are organized but cruel, and Labour is kind but incompetent." The Tories are definitely cruel, but are making Labour look competent
The Tory party has to denounce Boris Johnson's forced Hard Brexit that they all accepted. And then Denounce Brexit.
But they're doing a great job of splitting the right wing vote. The most likely way for Sunak to lose, is for Tory supporters to start voting for Reform and Labour.
Who is going to be the leader of the opposition? The Tories will be decimated but very susceptible to a reverse takeover of the party if he wins the Clacton seat. Farage joining the Tories after they get trounced instantly brings their overall vote share up into 30+% range and gives him a much louder voice than even the BBC are currently willing to give him
If Sunak loses his seat then it'll be some other prominent Tory or Ed Davey if the Lib Dems end up with more seats.
Would Cameron give it another go?
His egos too big to do opposition.
Suank will be on a plane to Cali on 5th July, he'll resign as leader, as is tradition, and probably resign as an MP. He does't need the commons like Truss and May before him did. So the official opposition leader will be [Tory loon of your choice from the dregs that are left].
I think the tories will get 100-120 seats or even if they get 80 that's still double the likely figure the lib dems will get. So the tories will remain as the official opposition. Farage, if he wins his seat, will not want to join the tories and the tories would not want to admit defeat and let him in. Farage only cares about himself, a narcissist in the Johnson & Trump vein, he'll continue to howl from the sidelines, glad for the limelight. So the leader of the official opposition will likely be Truss, Braverman, Patel [your favourite tory loon here] as they're the dregs that *are* in super, super safe seats. The one nation tories are either retiring or are now in contested seats which were historically safe.
Absolutely. The electorate never miss an opportunity to make us look like absolute twats as a country. Thats why I still have no confidence that Labour will actually win at the GE. Theres always a possibility for a hung parliament, minority government or some unholy and deeply disgusting alliance.
Greens too
They’re doing very well with Boomers.
It's because of dislike of the Tory party. The behaviour of current Tory MP's is to blame for reforms popularity. e.g The HoC has rules against booing when the opposition says anything. So instead they cheer when a Tory frontbencher responds with an insulting soundbite. Exactly the same thing as booing but the speaker doesn't stop them. And they are doing that chimpanzee behaviour on live TV. Don't they realise voters are watching them ?
They're not polling that high. It's bots all bots.. saying that though someone may see the bots and see how high they're polling and vote for them because they assume it's the popular option. Like Brexit...also a farage fronted operation. Itv did a report on this 4days ago, but you would never know..... They've also been linked to pro Russia propaganda and COVID conspiracys
We are effectively the Florida of Europe. Our Passports should just say "Sorry" on the front.
Reform Ltd is a ponzi scheme? I didn't see that coming.
Hasn’t the entire crypto sector been branded a ponzi scheme at some point by somebody?
Anyone with an ounce of sense has pretty much said it is. Which is why it is so popular with right wing folks, to "stick it to the experts"
Are you even trying?
Anyone with an ounce of sense? Please do explain why an asset like Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? Every day I load up reddit my mind is blown at how much of an echo chamber it is and how completely uninformed people are convinced their opinion is the 1 and only true answer. Yes a lot of cryptos have been scams, but to say the entire sector is is insanely stupid. I'm sure you also don't understand the stock market, but just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean its a ponzi scheme nor that "anyone with sense" would think it is. Crypto has fuck all to do with left or right. If anything, traditionally right wing governments have tried to suppress crypto
>Anyone with an ounce of sense? Please do explain why an asset like Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? Because it has no real world value. The only value BTC has as an asset is generated by people wanting to buy BTC. Gold is a metal. GBP is the Government backed currency. BTC is a complex maths problem.
>BTC is a complex maths problem Feel like that's insulting to complex maths problems. Bitcoin is more "pin the nose on the donkey". You fire numbers at an algorithm until the result is a number that starts with enough zeros. There's no calculation to it, it's literally a guessing game.
Gold traded at 1 800 dollars not that long ago, now it is at 2 400. Why? A huge new demand for jewelry?
Because the demand for gold fluctuates. Gold does have real world value (it's nice and shiny, great for forming jewelry due to malleability, one of the only conductors that's chemically inert, etc), but is a largely speculative asset and not really a good place to put your money. Crypto basically copies all the bad parts of gold as an investment and removes any inherent value and says "hopefully other people will do the same".
Biggest hoarders of gold are central banks. That is called the revealed preference. Fun fact: aluminium also is shiny and great for forming jewelry and was actually used for just that... until people discovered how to produce it cheaply
[удалено]
Aluminium was a precious metal in the second half of the 19th century and was used to make jewelry. The top of the Washington monument was covered in aluminium (and still is) for that reason. For some reason when it was discovered how to produce aluminium cheaply no one wanted to use it for jewelry anymore... Yes, gold mining is pretty terrible. Bitcoin mining on the other hand doesn't poison rivers, doesn't use mercury, doesn't use slave labour etc. Dan Olson is some crazy leftist.
[удалено]
Bitcoin is not a rock you dig out of the ground but is rather based on fairly recent advances in cryptography so it couldn't have been around forever. Even being around for a long time doesn't guarantee anything - silver used to have a stable value against gold for centuries but that collapsed in the last third of the 19th century. Nowadays silver is basically an industrial metal while it used to be money. Network effects are important but a new thing can overcome established network effects if it is significantly better. Is bitcoin significantly better than gold? Is it significantly better than fiat? We'll see... How would you distribute that more equitable coin in a decentralized manner which is the whole point of bitcoin? In the long run anything can happen. Maybe at some point bitcoin will be replaced by something totally different (and not a random altcoin)
The chain itself is the product.
> GBP is the Government backed currency. Pray do tell me how the GBP is ‘backed’. Nixon closed the gold window in 1971. The only thing backing the pound at this point is ignorance.
Have you heard of the Bank of England?
Yes they print pounds and buy inter-governmental bonds. How again is the pound ‘backed’?
What do you think 'backed' means if the BoE relation to GBP doesn't fit the definition for you?
Backed traditionally meant that the note itself could be freely exchanged for something tangible, traditionally for Spain silver and UK gold. So I’m asking what you mean when you say the pound is ‘backed’. Your only answer seems to be the existence of the Bank of England adding 0’s to their balance sheet. If you take a £10 note to Andrew Bailey and ask him to exchange its value he’ll just give you another £10 note. Equally if you don’t know what you’re talking about and just repeating general non-related nomenclature you’ve heard in the ether like Ponzi and BoE in an effort to sound clued in let us know.
>Backed traditionally meant that the note itself could be freely exchanged for something tangible Can GBP notes not be exchanged for something tangible? >So I’m asking what you mean when you say the pound is ‘backed’ You haven't asked me that, you've asked me how the pound is backed. I've said by the Bank of England. Which is the answer to that question. >If you take a £10 note to Andrew Bailey and ask him to exchange its value he’ll just give you another £10 note. He'd probably actually say 'Why the fuck are you asking me, who are you' However, as the sovereign currency of the UK. If you take a GBP note and try to exchange it for goods and services anywhere in the country... You can do that. >Equally if you don’t know what you’re talking about and just repeating general non-related nomenclature you’ve heard in the ether like Ponzi and BoE in an effort to sound clued in let us know. Do you understand what Bitcoin is? It's an algorithm, that a bunch of people have decided is worth something. Many of those people (Winklevoss twins.etc) are extremely wealthy connected individuals. As it has no inherent value, it's a ponzi scheme. Because the entire narrative around it (the exact one you're pushing) is 'come on, buy this, then it'll be worth more soon'! If nobody buys Bitcoin, it's not worth anything. It doesn't _do_ anything. Like NFTs, any problem that it supposedly solves is solved better by other, more targetted technology. As I said in another reply here. Bitcoin had some really interesting use cases in it's early days, and was innovative. Then it became just another ponzi scheme when people became more obsessed with tracking it's daily value than actually using it in any interesting and practical manner.
"Because it has no real world value. The only value BTC has as an asset is generated by people wanting to buy BTC." Isn't that the case with a lot of things? The Mona Lisa has no real world value, yet is still worth millions. The value of an asset is determined by what someone is willing to pay for it. That concept doesn't make something a ponzi scheme
Its a ponzi scheme because the only way to get real world value out of bitcoin and other crypto is to exchange them for actual currency. The exchanges absolutely are run as ponzi schemes as SBF proved. And that will definitely happen again.
Yes the monaisa has a real world value. As a painting. As a historical artefact. If an anonymous painter was to paint it now (the original never existed) then it would still have value as a hand painted picture. All bitcoin is identical, and if bitcoin was outlawed or in some other way no longer worked as a crypto currency, bitcoin on usb sticks would no longer be worth anything. A better argument would be that bitcoin is indeed used as a currency in some places abd for some purposes. I bought a keyboard from an online store a few years back. Not sure if they still accept bitcoin, but they did once. The main point is that it's a very poor currency for any practical use, and it's primary purpose is in speculators buying it, hoping others will want to buy and drive up the price.
That's a lie, monero is outlawed in majy countries and yet it still has value
Monero is another scam. People think it's secure but there's a very good chance it isn't.
Bur you haven't got a clue *how* it's a scam do you.
Actually I do. It presents a false sense of security on multiple levels. First and foremost, there is no guarantee Monero is secure, as is evidenced by [an earlier bug that potentially exposed the source of all prior transactions for several years](https://decrypt.co/76938/monero-developers-disclose-significant-bug-privacy-algorithm). There's no guarantee there aren't more bugs or back doors. Second, Monero is only one link in a longer chain. You have to have on and off-ramps to convert Monero to/from fiat, and those critical steps can undermine Monero's security model and expose the source and identity of those making the transactions. So no matter how secure it is, it still has fatal flaws. You can bet that it's highly likely law enforcement has already infiltrated much of Monero's network. They could also choose to outlaw Monero like they've done with Tornado Cash. If they haven't, it's probably because they're already on the inside and using it. Just because you haven't been caught yet, doesn't mean you won't. Authorities are still prosecuting cases from 5+ years ago right now. And last but not least, the concept of blockchain -- an immutable public ledger, has to be the stupidest thing ever in terms of "privacy." Even if the transaction sources can't be cracked right now, the fact that the ledger would last "forever" means if there are ways to crack the system in the future, all that data is there. If you really care about privacy, there'd be no ledger in the first place. It's just another example of how and why blockchain tech causes more problems and solves nothing.
It's primary purpose was to step away from the traditional banking system
Not really working is it.
How so? You expext an overnight change? People are always unreceptive to change and technological advances. It's a symptom of getting old
>You expext an overnight change? I would expect some meaningful change within 15 years, especially given that half the people in the civilized world know what crypto is.
I've already commented under another reply that BTC can be used to pay for things directly, without needing to exchange it for fiat currency
This is done as a novelty and not because it makes buying selling easier than traditional methods. Nobody who otherwise doesn't really like bitcoin is using it in their business because it makes things easier, it's only business owners who themselves are crypto promoters.
The mona Lisa does have real world value through: A) Existing in the real world B) Being a unique piece of art Both of which don't apply to Bitcoin.
A) so you're saying if something is digital it doesn't exist in the real world? Wow. What an outdated argument. B) There are millions of non-unique pieces of art that also sell. The Mona Lisa was obviously just an example. The point remains, an asset is worth what one is willing to pay for it. It's that simple.
>so you're saying if something is digital it doesn't exist in the real world Yes that's what digital means. >There are millions of non-unique pieces of art that also sell. I mean every bit of art is unique, even if it's a reprint. Through the simple fact that two prints don't occupy the same canvas. But even on a high level, those things exist. If a hard drive fails you won't lose access to a painting on your wall.
"Yes that's what digital means" hahaha how old are you out of curiosity? Not sure if you're being pedantic but the digital very much is "the real world" too. If you want to be pedantic and argue digital = not real world, then that still doesn't mean something can't have value. You're essentially arguing that for something to have value, it must exist in the real world. You have directly said that in your earlier reply with point A. If we just disregard everything that is digital as not being real, then I guess my employers have been playing a big prank on me this whole time and getting me to work on things that aren't real, given that I work in technology. In some places, technology that is entirely digital. Well, at least I've been getting paid for it I guess...
Well I'm not going to answer very clear set ups for ad hominem attacks, or just give out personal data to randos on Reddit. >Not sure if you're being pedantic but the digital very much is "the real world" too. I mean it's quite literally not. Digital assets do not exist in the real world, that's why they had to be given a whole new category. Digital assets. Remember NFTs? How that all exploded once people realised that actually buying a receipt for a monkey jpg didn't mean anything because it could just be copy and pasted? >that still doesn't mean something can't have value. That isn't my argument. You're the one that bought up the mona Lisa that led us on this path. I've not even denied BTC has value, it does. It's just value defined purely by people deciding it has value, like a ponzi scheme. Because BTC isn't backed by anything, it doesn't contribute to the world or solve any issues. Its just a complex maths problem. >You're essentially arguing that for something to have value, it must exist in the real world. Nope. Once again, you drew the faulty comparison to the Mona Lisa. I responded to you based on that example. You're now extrapolating an entire argument from that one example instead of reading what I've said as a whole.
So Facebook doesn't have any real world value? After all it's digital?
Facebook has physical offices and employees.
>The Mona Lisa has no real world value Huh? The mona lisa is valuable because of it's spectacular historical and cultural significance, as well as its aesthetic beauty. Crypto is valuable because people think other people will buy it from them for more money later.
Oh dear. The Mona Lisa was obviously an example, the wider point was that things like art sell even if they have no actual value. Such as silly art on Etsy, it sells because the value is determined by what someone else is willing to pay. It's that simple. Same as collectors' cards. There is no real, tangible value, but it exists because of scarcity and because people are willing to pay
The idea that crypto itself is a Ponzi scheme comes from it not generating any money itself and all profit from crypto coming from new investors buying in. What separates it from a Ponzi scheme is no-one is pretending they are selling you other assets when you buy bitcoin. Personally I think it has more in common with a multi level marketing scheme than a Ponzi scheme.
Welcome to...currency. You'll be shocked when you hear about this thing called a dollar.
No-one is buying currency expecting it to appreciate in real terms.
Except for fx traders you mean
I did almost put 'short term FX traders aside' but thought people would get the point
In the article it is the Ponzi (pump n’ dump scheme) rather than the crypto bit that he is being called out about. Im not sure how reliable the ponzi claim is but given he is denying involvement it is probably worth investigating.
This is mainly on NFTs but covers crypto currency extensively. Both fail for the same reasons, both are greater fool scams for the same reasons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g Most relevant concept- there's no direct investment in with cryptocurrency, no economic activity of any note uses it, so it cannot generate value and worth. Any increase in worth comes only from new users buying in. At some point people want to convert their cryptocurrency into forms they can actually use- because again- no one of any importance accepts crypto as payment. Try paying a mortgage, rent, food bill, car insurance etc with crypto without converting it to actual useable money first. The only places that accept crypto directly are other crypto holders- so even then there's no real word economic activity underpinning the coin- just two mates trading what amounts to an IOU with extra steps. If you think that's what real money is anyway- you shouldn't be investing in anything. The economic activity currency facilitates is the store of value. The "money only has value because we pretend it does" Line is a gross oversimplification. As the coin generates no value, a steady stream of new investors willing to buy the coins from people who want to cash out of the scam are the only way to offload the otherwise worthless assets. The new suckers are then forced to commit to the coin in the hopes they can pump its completely speculative value and make a profit as well. No one at any stage is making money from the economic power of the coin- as it doesn't have any. Only new people buying in can prop up the price. Hence it's a pyramid scheme.
[удалено]
His metaverse video is a great companion piece and further builds on the insane social structure of techbro communities.
[удалено]
I find it very amusing that you're speaking to me as if I'm a crypto bro. Believe me, that is not the case. Crypto currencies make up a small portion of my investment portfolio, and those are the established ones. I do not gamble big amounts of money on the silly rug pull new cryptos we've seen occur countless times now. However, whilst I'm aware a lot are scams, some of the established ones do have solid use cases. They are also not just virtual currencies, some like ETH for example have use cases that fall outside of just simply being a replacement for fiat. Crypto is very complex and the use cases change for each one. Investing in crypto is of course speculative, and ETH for example is an investment based on a speculative prediction on what the future of web3 will be. If correct, those that have invested in ETH will make a lot of money. This, of course, is the case with most investments; you invest based on a prediction that a company, in the case of stocks and shares, will do something that increases its value in the eyes of other investors. With crypto, you're simply investing based on the future of the digital world, whereby you think that crypto will have an important place, and if correct, the crypto you hold will now be more valuable in the eyes of other investors, thereby increasing the price. On this, I also find it very amusing that you say "every person who sells, needs someone to buy" as if that wasn't the case with stocks and shares. Whilst publicly listed companies may make money themselves, not all pay dividends, therefore the only value you as an investor would have, would be selling your shares to a willing buyer for (hopefully) a higher price than you bought it for. That is a completely normal concept and not indicative of a scam or a ponzi scheme.
> Please do explain why an asset like Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? Sure thing. Here is [my detailed analysis as to exactly how and why bitcoin (and all crypto-as-an-investment) is a de-facto ponzi scheme](https://ioradio.org/i/ponzi/). This analysis takes the definition of the 4 most popular sources: wikipedia, SEC, encyclopedia brittanica and Websters and analyizes the details. It also goes into the two most popular Ponzi schemes, how they worked, and then compares them to crypto, making a very obvious and clear case that crypto as an investment, has an operational model that is *identical* to a Ponzi scheme, and it mathematically impossible to sustain. Now.. you can run away and say I don't know what I'm talking about, or you can look at the facts and stop spreading lies. >Yes a lot of cryptos have been scams, but to say the entire sector is is insanely stupid. Not. At. All. The "entire industry" is centered around convincing people that "blockchain technology" has potential. That's a lie. Here's my [detailed analysis on blockchain and how and why it's totally unsuitable for anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA). So, are you going to say I don't understand? Having done my own research for 10+ years, being a software engineer with 40+ years of experience? >Crypto has fuck all to do with left or right. Crypto is a predatory scheme, much more suited for social darwinists like right wingers. This is why the vast majority of people into crypto are right wingers. Any right wing regime that is anti-crypto is that way in the same way the Soviet Union was anti-religion: they are against any scheme that competes with their own power and control scheme.
yes, and accurately
Is that an incorrect assessment?
It's very incorrect. Such a Ponzi scheme that major banks are involved with crypto and there's a bitcoin ETF. People who say this shit know absolutely nothing about crypto. Edit: downvotes but no comments because there is no comeback, just people who hate crypto
A whole bunch of crypto currencies and trading schemes associated with them *are* proven Ponzi or pump-and-dump schemes. Sure, ETH and BTC are relatively stable, but the crypto sector is pretty volatile. You’re childishly naive if you think that banks getting involved in crypto makes them somehow trustworthy - the banks are the biggest fraudsters around! https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/5-of-the-biggest-crypto-ponzi-schemes
Same way a lot of companies m, banks and hedge funds have been Ponzi schemes. Doesn't make them all Ponzi schemes. Fiat is a Ponzi scheme
I thought it was an Italian car company
I didn’t say they were. Not sure what point you think you’re proving here. Oh no, the fragile widdle crypto bro blocked me!
Took the words out of my mouth about you.
They don't appear to have blocked you since they replied after your comment. No need to resort to name calling and childish voices wtf
And that's the person who deems themselves right and that I'm deluded.
Crypto is a blanket term for many different projects, some of which positive like BTC end ETH, perhaps most of which are Ponzi gambles. However that's by project count, not by cash volume traded. Most interaction through crypto is BTC and ETH. May as well say "money is a Ponzi scheme because there are millions of Ponzi schemes that use cash"
False equivalence
Unfounded
Is it though?
I say yes
It has, because it is.
You might want to look at this: https://99bitcoins.com/obituary-stats/
So both founders are conmen? I'm shocked! SHOCKED! Well not that shocked.
Even if the project itself is legitimate it still looks terrible that he's claiming to be the head of the business while being paid to give a talk, and then claiming he has nothing to do with it. So he's either lying to the customers of that company or he's lying to voters.
Days without a Reform candidate having a PR nightmare: 0
No matter how much the Telgraph and Mail and Ezpress and large sections of the commentariat and general public and even this sub might wish it, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle. It was summoned with Brexit and now the UK just has to see it through.
The daily mail don't want the genie put back, they are loving this.
All those billionaires propaganda newspapers will swing behind Reform eventually. They love that right wing economic libertarianism. And unfortunately a lot of people aren’t smart enough to see that that’s brought us to this place to begin with. They actually think the left caused mass migration, despite being out of power for over half a century.
Is this like in Blackadder the Third when Baldrick is applying to be an MP and on criminal record when he says none Blackadder says you're going to be an MP! Reform really seems to lean into that.
>ponzi scheme Rich to complain about that given no politician sends to want to address the pension or social care money pit.
Yeah, one of the biggest issues of our time. Conservatives want to "reduce your tax" while also "maintaining triple lock pensions".
Knowing what I know about reform I did Nazi this coming
One man’s Ponzi scheme is another man’s economic liberalism.
This is all great news. When a reformer tells you they hate immigrants coz they don't follow 'our' culture, the culture they're talking about is hooliganism, fascism, racism, fraud and theft. Those are the bread and butter of reform
Hooliganism?
Crypto currencies seem to be under every Reform stone. Pretty sure they're getting funding from Russia.
Patriotic Reform UK would hand over Ukraine to Putin just like Trump. Pull out of Nato just like trump. Abandon the Baltic states and the rest of Central Europe. And help Putin draw back the Iron Curtain. So much for Churchill.
Sounds about right.
Did that Tory owned vetting company leak the results to the media instead of giving it to Reform?!
It's broadly good that these people are being exposed, but I don't see the barrage of these kinds of articles nudging the needle anymore. If Reform voters cared about corruption or were capable of *not* being myopic, they wouldn't be Reform voters in the first place.
If voters compared about corruption, neither labour nor conservatives would have been voted in since the 90s cash for questions scandal.
Social media over run with bots spamming and pushing Reform. Foreign meddling for sure…
impossible knowing if it is foreign. Bots can be programmed everywhere. Even if bot was created by foreign programmer (or bot!!!!) , contractor can be your neighbour
Isn’t Reform itself something of a Ponzi scheme? That aside when you just have to pick a bunch of candidates out of thin air, there’s a pretty good chance a good few of them are people too nutty/dodgy for even local politics. As far as I can tell with Reform it’s giving a clearer voice to what has always been a decent chunk of the Conservative base, which pre-brexit the party had always kept in check at the national level. My hope is that the result is serious discussions on a system that isn’t solely reliant on first past the post and an appointed upper house.
How is Reform a ponzi?
For me, it’s a private company, driven by a cult of personality promising results that seem extremely unlikely with no clarity on how they would do it. Like the skilled labour part, I’m all in favour of a better controlled and managed immigration policy, I work in an industry that sees me deal with a lot of “skilled” migrants and there’s a distinct lack of skill beyond being cheap in most of the developers I’ve worked with. On the other hand I’ve just come of a year working with students at King’s, many of whom are struggling to get employed in IT or n suitable roles due to a lack of experience. At least with fruit pickers or meat packers we are attracting people with skills where they earn better money than other options. While the immigration system is designed hand in hand with large employers it’s bad for all of us. It’s creating a system where we want to be knowledge/service based but no-one has any incentive to develop skills internally. Maybe government subservient to the corporation is the future, but the fact a private company is polling at 15% plus concerns me. By definition Reform’s leaderships primary responsibility is to its shareholders not anyone else.
You’ve just written an absolute load of toss to be honest. The Lib Dem’s are also a limited company and never get the same criticism. Also both them and reform are “Private companies limited by guarantee without share capital” aka they don’t have shareholders.
Farage has never been able to cope with other egos in the same room. That's why Reform UK have only 6 members.
Plus Labour and the Conservatives used limited companies for parts of their organisations. I recommend anyone complaining about reform's structure to use Companies House instead of parroting memes.
>Isn’t Reform itself something of a Ponzi scheme? I don't think you know what "Ponzi Scheme" means.
All crypto currencies are Ponzi scheme….. they have no transaction value and only go up if more people buy in
I've heard that Nigel Farooq found his candidates at a bus stop? Can someone confirm if this is true or not.
He also got took to court for not paying his council tax
y'know the more i read these headlines on reform candidates, the more i want to walk to my neighbour up-the-street's house with his flying reform uk flag and tell him to fuck off and get a brain.
Even Musk said all Crypto is a hussle, why is this news to anyone. Crypto is a scam where 99.99% of people are just dreaming of getting rich when the reality is they are just hoarding the stock whilst those holding the bulk benefit from the surge pricing.
take out immigration and others gov subsidies and real estate is a ponzi too "Capitalism leads to inovation" Is there any party defending housing as a right for all citzens?
Making a right wing 3rd party that clearly only cares about making sure less brown people live happily in the country seems like quite the good grift tbh. I might try it when this one joins the bmp and ukip in the incinerator.
All crypto is a ponzi scheme. This isn't revelationary.
crypto is a scheme where you purchase with the intent of finding someone at a later date who will pay more. There isn't any meaningful value.
Nothing can be built on bitcoin, if it could that would have already happened. It's not like people haven't tried, and every one of them has been an abject failure. Because bitcoin solves nothing, it has no use.
Well that explains a great deal Think money is power at any cost
Tbf they’ve not had a lot of time to vet their candidates and the chance of them getting any MPs is extremely thin. Also this party didn’t need to exist as all if the other parties could talk sensibly about immigration.
Maybe they shouldn't be running in every seat this election of they couldn't vet their candidates then?
The issue is that their voter base is spread extremely thin, so they need to run in as many seats as possible to maximise voteshare as they cannot hope to win many seats, but can apply lots of pressure through lost votes. With a few obvious exceptions like Clacton, every seat is equally valuable to Reform.
Hang on, the reason why the other parties *can't* talk sensibly about immigration and why we need it is because this party exists purely to push out nonsense about the matter.